According to copyright law, a person can use an image under fair use for purposes of teaching, news reporting, comment, or criticism. However, looking at the manipulated image, it is apparent the user is not aiming to achieve those objectives. Moreover, due to the manipulation, the new image is a derivative of the original, and that requires the users to seek permission from the original copyright holder. If the person who changed the image did not seek permission from the copyright holder of the original image, then there is copyright infringement. Using the “man in the street test," a person can recognize the second image as a copy of the first one as an indication of an infringement. Overall, the photograph is infringing copyright.
Image theft and plagiarism is different but are unethical. In image plagiarism, the artist takes a photo, but seeks to copy another work. He or she copies the work from an angle, perspective, color, subject, and even composition so that the plagiarized work is similar to the original. On the other hand, image theft is the use of another without acknowledgment of the source. In the majority of cases, image theft is apparent, but in others, the image thief might alter it slightly before use ( Gagosian) . In this image, the image is changed a little before use, making it a case of image theft. The manipulation is meant to introduce a new meaning to the image and possibly bias to show that all dreadlocked Rastafarians are mostly musicians.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The photograph on the right is a painting based on the picture on the left. The original owner of the work is a French photographer known as Patrick Cariou, and the works were from his 2000 book Yes, Rasta (Powerhouse) for a show at Gagosian Gallery. In response to the photography, Cariou sued Richard Prince, the alleged copyright violator together with Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian and catalog publisher Rizzoli (Duray). He won the case and in 2011 when the court ordered the defendants to destroy the remaining copies of the catalog and unsold paintings based on the photographs of Cariou (Boucher). However, the ruling was overturned except for five paintings that the court concluded violated the copyright of Cariou. For the rest of the images, the court decided they must be revaluated under the claims of fair use. From the court cases that arose from the image, it is evident the photograph created a legal storm due to claims of copyright infringement.
According to the analysis elsewhere in this paper, and following the court ruling, the photograph violated copyright. However, other than the illegality, it also raises ethical issues. Citing the source of a work is the ethical thing to do for any artist who wants to use the work of others in their creations. In this case, the artist used the work of others as the basis of their work and did not credit the original artist. His approach was unethical and illegal at the same time; hence, the legal storm the publication of the photograph caused. If the artist wanted so much to use the work of Cariou, the best thing for Prince would have been to seek for his permission or pay for the use the image, as it was a copyrighted work.
According to Copyright Registration for Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works, a photograph is protected from by the copyright law, and cannot be copied or otherwise altered without the permission of the original owner of the work. A work of art can be a realistic photograph to drawings and renditions of a product (US Legal). In this photograph, the item is a photograph, and the law covers it. Thus, in the absence of permission from the original owner of the image, Prince violated the law. The courts agreed with that view following the findings of the court in 2011 and a subsequent appeal.
The issue led to the court case, but fundamentally, the problem is about ethics. The standard framework for solving ethical dilemmas are identifying the ethical issue, identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, seeking help if necessary, to resolve the dilemma, and then deciding the course of action. The ethical issue, in this case, is altering a copyrighted work without permission and failure to cite. The best course of action is crediting the original author in the work of art allowed by the court under fair use and for those in violation of copyright law, seeking permission from the copyright owner or paying to use the work. From the utilitarian perspective, the solution that would deliver the most good is the solution described earlier ( Workplace Ethics Advice) . Also, under Kantian deontology, using creative work without the permission of the original owner without permission cannot be universalized; therefore, Richard Prince was unethical.
My feelings about the photograph are that Richard Prince violated copyrighted work. As discussed earlier, the ethical issue is using another person's work and passing it off as one's original work. The solution is making amends with the copyright owner and paying him to use the image or photograph under copyright laws. Alternatively, the person altering the image can use it within allowed fair use. The main benefit of the path chosen is that it addresses the ethical dilemma the case presents. However, on the other hand, the path chosen is expensive, as it might make it harder for artists to take advantage of existing works, such as images, for productive purposes.
In the future, the best way to handle the issue is trying to use photographs under fair-use terms and providing an appropriate citation to credit the original creator of the work. In the situation where an artist wants to create something new based on existing work, the best thing is to seek permission or pay the appropriate fee. Another alternative is to use a stock photo whose licensing requirements are free and allows artists to alter images without violating the copying laws. Numerous websites provide thousands of such photos under permissive licensing requirements and taking advantage of such resources can solve the ethical issues identified in this case.
Works Cited
Boucher, Brian. Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit . 30 Aug. 2013, https://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit/.
Duray, Dan. 'I Don't Want to Talk About Where the Rastas Came From': Richard Prince's 'Canal Zone' Press Release Is Spot-On . 22 Apr. 2014, https://observer.com/2014/04/i-dont-want-to-talk-about-where-the-rastas-came-from-richard-princes-canal-zone-press-release-is-spot-on/.
Workplace Ethics Advice. Resolving Ethical Conflicts in the Workplace . https://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2016/10/resolving-ethical-conflicts-in-the-workplace.html.
Gigosian. Richard Prince: Canal Zone, 980 Madison Avenue, New York, May 8–June 14, 2014 . 12 Apr. 2018, https://gagosian.com/exhibitions/2014/richard-prince-canal-zone/.
US Legal, Inc. Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Work . https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/pictorial-graphic-and-sculptural-work/.
